SPRING AWAKENING - 2/19/07 - Review (with Spoilers)- Page 3

Posted: 2/20/07 at 9:52am

Um, what? I thought the show was entertaining in that really awful trainwreck sort of way and utterly laughable on every level, and I'm personally entertained by that graphic as well.

[Becoz_i_knew_you21]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 10:01am

I only read the first page of this thread. I just has to say, Siamese, you had some good points about not liking the show. But why would they make this material modern? I believe the story is historically accurate and they don't need to modernize it.

[educator06]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 10:02am

It is funny isn't it? I found SA to be highly entertaining on many levels. Your comment about "especially with the awful cheesy backup singers" reduces your credibility considerably. You are beginning to sound a little ridiculous when you make statements like that. Quit while you’re ahead.


Updated On: 2/20/07 at 10:02 AM

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 10:07am

Thanks for the review, siamese. I saw this show early in Broadway previews, and went in really hoping that I would like it but not knowing that much about it. I was entertained for an evening, thought that it was an okay show with a good score, but felt absolutely zero emotional involvement, mainly due to the inorganic melodrama and transitions or lyrics that completely pulled me out of the story. Not a single character is suitably developed, save perhaps for Moritz (but even then, I'm sure it's just that he seems at least a little more real than the others rather than that the character is fully-formed), and I didn't feel anything for their misfortunes. The girls, in particular, were insufferable. I didn't hate the show, and certainly didn't have the negative response that you had, but it felt pretty throwaway as far as theatrical experiences go.

Which, you know what? Is fine. But seeing so much praise heaped on this show makes me wonder what it is that's making people, particularly critics, completely overlook what seem to be obvious flaws. Some of the shows that I love the most are hopelessly flawed, but I'm willing to look past it because I see the point or some emotional chord is struck that makes it impossible to look too closely. I suppose this may be what's happened with Spring Awakening for some people, although I didn't have that experience at all, given that lack of emotional involvement was one of its biggest flaws in my eyes. It's just dramatically over-the-top from an emotional standpoint, which renders it ultimately empty. I had a discussion with Emcee once where we noted that a lot of the people who seem to love it are either teenagers or well past their teenage years, and we speculated that perhaps there was an age component to it. People who have recently completed their teen years are probably still close enough to them to analyze the emotion of the characters in the play and realize that real teenagers don't act or react that way. (This isn't meant to trivialize anyone who found the characters relatable on an emotional level.)

Anyway, I definitely see and appreciate what Spring Awakening is trying to convey in the dangers of repression in society, now and then, but that doesn't mean that I can't be extremely disappointed that it has every chance to make an emotional connection and fails, at least with me, to do so. Its flaws are things that could be avoided if, as you've pointed out, the material were handled with more care and attention to detail. Even more appropriate lyrics that weren't as heavy on teen angst melodrama could've improved the show by leaps and bounds.
Updated On: 2/20/07 at 10:07 AM

Posted: 2/20/07 at 10:08am

You are beginning to sound a little ridicules when you make statements like that. Quit while you’re ahead.

"Ridicules"?! Quit while you aren't diminishing your "credibility" by making blatant spelling errors. As a sidenote, I'm not sure how anyone can defend those melodramatic bruised/wounded sequences. It didn't help that the person singing them sounded like a poor man's Thom Yorke (not that people on this board know who he is, but I digress).

Becoz, I discussed that issue at various points during this thread. I'm not sure how you can claim that using modern-day colloquialisms over 1800s Germany is "historically accurate," either.

ETA: Siren, I thought you made a really interesting point about those who just completed their teenage years being more apt to be angry at the way that certain issues, especially teenage "angst" in general, were handled in the show. And as a completely silly sidenote, I think it's hilarious that your avatar is collectively grinning like an idiot in this thread. The poor thing feels a little out of place. Updated On: 2/20/07 at 10:08 AM

[educator06]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 10:26am

I'm sorry, I made a typo. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I need to proof my posts better.

[sciguy]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 10:37am

educator06- That is hysterical

Siamese- thank you for supporting your views with intellegence.
Based on your avatar, is it possible that you went in looking for faults?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 10:43am

Backing up -- of course it's too in depth. We're debating things that are like, minute details and possibly not even in the play. I dunno, I mean, I wasn't arguing or defending the show, I just thought it was an interesting discussion. Like I said, I agree with most of yours points -- I just didn't totally hate it on the whole.

[brainpolice23]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 11:21am

Siamese, I believe you have a lot of valid points, however, personally I still found the show enjoyable.

Many characters were definitely underdeveloped, not necessarily stemming from Wedekind's original.

Melchior: Wedekind was incredibly interested in illustrating that "love" did not exist, that there was only lust, pushed forward by the animal-like sexual desires of both the male and female. Melchior reads a great deal, given a great deal of leeway because of liberal parents (Wedekind was the same way), however in the original play, Melchior's animal instinct overcomes him and causes him to beat Wendla, and then rape her. The main flaw in Melchior's character, in the original, is that although he reads a great deal, and seems to have a basic understanding of human character, he is nonetheless subject to certain things merely because of his age.

In the musical, I believe Mayer and Sater tried to hard to make Melchior this great protagonist being, who is smart, attractive, and caring. As a result, the plays actions become less cohesive, and Melchior becomes a character that is very hard to relate to.

Wedekind made Moritz and Melchior a combination of himself, and his "arch-enemy" the naturalistic playwright Gerhart Hauptmann. However, it is doubtful that any of Wedekind's lengthy character descriptions, and contrasts between himself and Hauptmann were researched during development.

Moritz: John Gallagher puts on a fantastic show. His stage presence is undeniable, his delivery frantic, and his voice reminiscent of Wedekind from the eyes of Brecht, "[Wedekind] sang his songs to guitar accompinament in a brittle voice, slightly monotonous and quite untrained. No singer gave me such a shock such a thrill. It was the man's intense aliveness, the energy which allowed him to defy sn*ing ridicule and proclaim his brazen hymn to humanity, that also gave him this personal magic."

Gallagher illustrates the beauty of this rock-musical concept...however almost all of the others fall short. If you read a couple of Wedekind biographies, it is easy to see that Wedekind was just as much a "rock-star" as Duncan Sheik, which is why I think this idea works. However, the lyrical execution, and lack of strong character development, both on the part of the writing team and actors, causes the product to fall a bit flat. No doubt though, Johnny Gallagher is a thrill to watch. Yet, due to the placement of him in the "Those You've Known" scene, his character is slightly weakened. In the original play, Moritz attempts to coerce Melchior into joining him in the grave, almost feeling as if it is part of his master plan...show them all through suicide, and manipulate these naive kids (Moritz and Wendla) into having the same understandings that you do. By having Moritz and Wendla come out of the stage, in some hokie Les Mis type action, simply indicates that "hey, it's about time that we wrap up this show," with "Purple Summer" being the "HEY WE STILL WANT A STANDING OVATION, AND MOST PEOPLE WON'T CLAP LOUDLY IF THEY'RE VERY UPSET" number.

anywhom, on to the next character.

Ilse: Being a douchebag, I asked Lauren Pritchard at this Spring-Awakening talk back "Have you drawn any parallels to the character of Lulu, from Wedekind's Erdgeist and Pandora's Box, with your character?" She replied "No, but maybe I should look into it." The sad thing is, that Ilse is Wedekind's model of this unrestrained, sexual, free, nomadic, female, that he uses over and over in his stories to illustrate that females have just as much sexual desire as males. Although Ilse's presence in Spring Awakening is not as grand as the presence of Lulu in the two plays, or even Klara the central character in "Musik," (oddly advised by a character named Else). You can argue that Ilse is slightly underdeveloped, and not really enthralling because most of her time is spent singing "like a rock-star in their bedroom," but the fact is that there are so many resources out there that time on stage should not hinder your ability to develop a strong character. Think of your first theatre teacher that said "Even the Onion in the vegetable patch can impact the audience to a great degree."

Wendla: Wedekind wrote her as this naive girl, who doubted that anyone cared for her, even her parents. She longed for love, while Melchior had the understanding that "there is no such thing as love," making Wendla the perfect target for illustrating his ideology. She asks him to beat her, thinking that may indicate love, and then of course Melchior's lustful desires control him, and push him to rape Wendla. Wedekind plays on the idea of LOVE throughout the play, however he, like Melchior, did not believe such a thing existed. This may be in turn why the Hanschen/Ernst scene is so comical, because of the same interplay between one who is just motivated by lust, and the other who feels as if love truly exists.

Martha: In reality, she should be a really ****ed up character. Yet she is so composed in the musical, that you doubt anything is really wrong with her. You can make the argument that "she is trying to hide her feelings," but still she would show signs of being overly restrained. "Dark I Know Well" is a fantastic song though.

Thea: I guess she looks like she's 12.

Hanschen: Johnny B. Wright clearly put a great deal of thought into this character, and his effort pays off a great deal. However, I was a little confused with his vocal delivery during ensemble numbers. This, I assume, indicates the discontinuity between the script and music that Siamese speaks of as Hanschen has a few different vocal styles, mainly the "Bitch of Living," "Word of Your Body (Reprise)" style, and the "Totally F*CKed," "My Junk" style. This is not really on the actor, as it is evident that some songs act as "internal monologues" while others ...eh, don't really do it.

Otto, Georg, and Ernst: These actors are fantastic, and they do an amazing job with the material. However, I wish that there was a greater amount of material that they both could work with in the show, especially Otto. I feel as if, Sater and Mayer drew the line somewhere and said "the more we play out these various vignettes about abuse, homosexuality, gypsy-love, and masturbation, the further away we may push the audience." So, Otto's story is sort of set aside.



To sort of bring this mess together, I enjoyed "Spring Awakening" thoroughly...though I doubt anyone really cares. The problems in the show seem to lie in poor lyricism, rough restructuring from Wedekind's original, underdeveloped characters, and the lack of cohesiveness between the main plot and the sub-plots, as well as the music and script at points. That's all for now.

Peace.

edited to add: Steven Spinella is weak, and overdoes almost every male character. The worst comes in the hands of Moritz's father, weeping uncontrollably over his grave...instead of the scorn, and disdain shown for his dead son in the original "this boy was no son of mine." Personally, I think it would have worked better.

+

Siamese, I definitely see the Thom Yorke reference. Duncan Sheik during rehearsals told the actors to "sing like thom yorke" and a bunch of others...Gallagher has said he was influenced vocally by Billie Joe Armstrong from Green Day. However, I felt at times they should have been played Talking Heads instead of Radiohead...b/c David Byrne can easily be seen as an influence in some of the music. Updated On: 2/20/07 at 11:21 AM

[feinstein9]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 11:25am

I completly agree with the "oscar bait" argument. Every award season a show (or film) comes along that is so forced, so manufactured, that the insincerity of it all leads to a banal and ultimitly "plastic" piece of work. If Spring Awakening works for some people, I'm glad. I'm happy anytime a piece of theater touches someone. It's a good thing. But when I saw it, I sat with my mouth agape trying to decipher exactly what was playing before me. Were they for real? Was this really happening? The choreography, the lyrics that only almost matched the music (I mean in terms of beats, not mood), the faux expressions of angst. I didn't believe any of it. The whole mood felt like an old man trying to be hip and "with it." And what's worse is that it's being hailed as something "new" and "exciting." I don't think the elderly critics can identify with this show- it's for the kids, and it's their opinion that counts. And the kids are thinking that it's new and exciting, but the critics should know better. Know that this isn't new. The approach, the staging, is new, certainly. But that's about it. It's all been told before. And it's been said better.
Also, it's unfair to assume that one who likes Grey Gardens would go in to SA with a chip on their shoulder. That doesn't even make sense. Theater lovers *want* to love the shows they're paying to see. It's not about competition at that point. I like Grey Gardens, I love Company! Is that why I dislike SA? No. It's because I think if you don't have something new to say you shouldn't say it all.

Igor Stravinsky's "The Rites of Spring" says everything Spring Awakening says... and in only 34 minutes.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 12:42pm

In the musical, I believe Mayer and Sater tried to hard to make Melchior this great protagonist being, who is smart, attractive, and caring. As a result, the plays actions become less cohesive, and Melchior becomes a character that is very hard to relate to.

I agree, and actually had just commented something to this effect to siamese dream in a different conversation. I just don't understand that change, and think that Melchior would have been a vastly more interesting character had they not tried to cast him as the unquestionable protagonist. Which he still isn't, if you ask me. There was no question in my mind on seeing the show that Melchior knew the ins and outs of sex and how pregnancy works, and even if the sex with Wendla was made consensual, he was aware of the risks and didn't care. Or was just overtaken by his lust, you could argue. He still takes advantage of her, whether she wants it or not, by preying on her naivete. It feels as though they could've done so much more with that aspect than they did.

I haven't read Wedekind's play, but brainpolice23's very thoughtful analysis sort of makes me want to. I'm fascinated by the idea that Melchior doesn't believe that love exists, only sexual desire -- and if that's the case with the original play, I would so have liked to get more of that, thematically, in the musical.

[sfs1414]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 12:52pm

I HATE when people say the authors were lazy because they used the lyrics BLAH BLAH BLAH. In totally ****ed. These lyrics are in here for a good reason. Walk up to any high school kid today and ask them what they learned in science class. There answer will be somewhere along the lines of BLAH BLAH. Or ask about the last time there parents yelled at them.. What did they hear? BLAH BLAH. This is not lazy song writing. This is great song writing!!

[sfs1414]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 12:53pm

I HATE when people say the authors were lazy because they used the lyrics BLAH BLAH BLAH. In totally ****ed. These lyrics are in here for a good reason. Walk up to any high school kid today and ask them what they learned in science class. There answer will be somewhere along the lines of BLAH BLAH. Or ask about the last time there parents yelled at them.. What did they hear? BLAH BLAH. This is not lazy song writing. This is great song writing!!

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:11pm

Brainpolice, I don't have the time to read all of that closely right now (I will later), but thank you for what appears to be an incredibly insightful post! I find it completely amusing that the performers were told to sing like Thom Yorke, because that's honestly the first name that popped into my head when I heard that performer whine those lines - all of this coming from a semi-Radiohead fan, by the way.

Feinstein, thank you for your thoughts and for defending me.

Siren, I love you, and I'm convinced that you always take the words right out of my mouth in a more eloquent manner. Doesn't Melchior tell Wendla that he loves her in the show? I don't remember, but if he does and doesn't believe in love, that would certainly add a fascinating layer to his character. I'm not sure there's enough material there about the characters to figure this out definitively, though - and again, we face the problem of extremely underdeveloped characters.

SFS, seriously, drop the "blah blah" argument. That is seriously THE least of the show's problems.
Updated On: 2/20/07 at 01:11 PM

[liotte]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:31pm

Sorry that you didn't like the show more, SD. That wait in the cold yesterday morning was miserable, wish it was more worth it for you.

I like Spring Awakening, but enjoy the music more outside of the show. I have no desire to deeply analyze every aspect of this show (and honestly, just skimmed the posts that were more than a paragraph), but I did enjoy it last night and will most likely go again.

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:41pm

Thanks, Liotte. I wish I went over to talk to you during the wait yesterday! My friend's response to most of my criticisms was either "it's in the source material!" or "you're overanalyzing," so I understand the desire to just appreciate the show at face value. For me, it's difficult not to overanalyze anything in the first place, and I feel like a show that purports to convey teenage emotion and deals with truly traumatic issues begs for analyzation as well. I'm glad you enjoyed it more than I did!

[kgallo]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:52pm

"Um. I didn't really feel like getting into this specifically, but ever heard of the pull out method?"

Honestly, I think that is one of the worst things they could have done and I'm glad they didn't go that route. That is NOT the message that teens, or anyone for that matter, should be getting: "You can have sexs, just pull out and you'll both be fine!" I think the way it is portrayed is more realistic and more honest.

But these are only our opinions and I we are all entitled to our own.

I am interested to hear stagegrrrl's...where are you?

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:54pm

There was a disconnect, for me, between what should have been on the stage and what was on the stage that I can't put my finger on.

I overall enjoyed the show, not nearly as much as most people.

I do think the tone and pacing of the show has a lot to do with the original material, which has its own odd sense of structure.

brainpolice - your comments on Hanschen's music are somewhat what I was referring to before. The music was written for a piece of musical theatre to further characterization (they obviously decided not to use the songs to further the plot, which is fine).

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:57pm

Honestly, I think that is one of the worst things they could have done and I'm glad they didn't go that route. That is NOT the message that teens, or anyone for that matter, should be getting: "You can have sexs, just pull out and you'll both be fine!" I think the way it is portrayed is more realistic and more honest.

I am absolutely NOT suggesting that's an effective method for birth control. I was suggesting that Melchior probably would have, realistically, used that method if he didn't have access to condoms or anything else. I was also suggesting that it could still perfectly fit into the plotline of Wendla getting pregnant, i.e. the "protection" failed, which would most certainly not give the message to the audience that the pull out method is somehow safe. Please don't put words into my mouth, and considering the themes with which Spring Awakening deals already, making sure that the audience gets a positive "message" is really irrelevant.

The music was written for a piece of musical theatre to further characterization (they obviously decided not to use the songs to further the plot, which is fine).

I think that would have been fine if the songs actually did further characterization. Often, the lyrics did no such thing.

Updated On: 2/20/07 at 01:57 PM

[kgallo]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:07pm

I did not put words into your mouth. If you read over my post you will see that, however I was only stating my opinion and what I interprested out of points that were brought up. As I already stated we are all entitled to our opinions and I have no interest in attacking anyone or arguing about it, just presenting my thoughts.

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:09pm

I felt that you did in suggesting that I somehow thought that they should use that method as birth control and it result in everything being "okay," when I clearly said that wasn't what I was suggesting at all. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding. At any rate, you're most definitely entitled to your opinion, and I'm glad you were apparently able to really enjoy the show.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:22pm

Hmm. As far as the show's "message," I think you have to look at what you're assuming the message is. It's not a show about birth control -- the message isn't about showing kids how to effectively have safe sex. It's about what happens when adolescents are left to their own devices, not fully informed and pretty naive. This all goes back to a lot of the things I was saying last night -- and what I suppose we ended up agreeing on, in that you're looking at all of the million possibilities and what ifs.

To me, it's like you're saying "Melchior should have done x," but... did he know enough to figure that out? Maybe not. You're saying realistically, he should have known to pull out -- but the naivete the show suggests in these characters leads me wonder if he truly did not know any better. That seems to be the tragedy of it all in the sense that they spiral so far down from their innocence. The big question is probably just how much Melchior actually did know, but I think you can only be so literal about this, you know? I still think the main issue of the show is not the accidental pregnancy, but that it results from not informing these kids. It is much more about repression than it is an accident occuring from an act of rebellion. Regardless of what you read into it (to which you -- editorial -- are more than entitled), I still think it's really important to be aware of the intent, which I think is minimal knowledge; they see nothing wrong with what they did because it felt right. Yes, he "could have" pulled out. He could have like... fashioned a sheepskin condom, or whatever. But to me, there comes a point when inferring the possibilities is a little bit overkill and you have to work with what you're given, because you're given what you are for a reason.

You're saying something else would fit the plotline which yes, it would, but then I think the whole main theme would just fall out from under the show. I know you'll probably say that the above is just not realistic... for which I can only refer you to a history book, I guess. You're saying these ideas are not realistic period, but your solutions aren't realistic within the frame of the story.

To get technical, though, the scene only shows enough that the audience gets the picture; they don't stage an entire sex scene.

Updated On: 2/20/07 at 02:22 PM

[kgallo]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:24pm

"I still think the main issue of the show is not the accidental pregnancy, but that it results from not informing these kids. It is much more about repression than it is an accident occuring from an act of rebellion."

Agreed. 100%

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:33pm

Thank you, siamese dream! I had many of the same thoughts when I saw the show last moth. My biggest dissapointments were the treatment of the adult characters and the barn scene at the end of the first act. The mics drove me nuts too, because there was no rhyme or reason to when or how they were used, but that is such a small point. I wish they had at least kept the second act truer to the original play...

[xM3L24x]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 2:39pm

Firstly, I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the show. I personally loved it.

You mentioned a few times that you don't believe Wendla would have no idea about pregnancy, but that's really how things were back than. My mom and I were discussing the show and my mom told me stories about how her mom (my grandma)was kept in the dark as well - and she grew later than 1891.

I guess it can be debated whether or not Melchior knew that sex could lead to pregnancy, and I agree with your point that he did not seem surprised to find out that Wendla was pregnant. I believe that even if he knew about those consequences, he wasn't thihnking about them. I think that's true even today.

This is why it's so important that the show was kept in the 1800's. The Wendla/Melchior story would have been dealt with very differently today, and I feel that the ignorance of the situation is a key point in Spring Awakening.

Many of the issues parallel the ones that are still prevalent today. I thought it was very clever to have the ensemble members in modern clothes to kind of illustrate that.

I also like how the show ends with 'The Song of Purple Summer'. The song offers a hopeful outlook for the teens and leaves you with a good feeling.